QP Chapter 4 part 6

Questioning Paul

Chapter 4

part 6

If you recall, we discovered in Galatians 2:8, where the adjective and verb "energeo – facilitate and functionality" was rendered in the masculine, this meant that the one working through Paul could not be the Set-Apart Spirit, who is feminine. And now here, we have an even more revealing insight into the identity of Paul’s ally and enemy. In the opening sentence, the article o, which denotes the subject as "the one," was scribed in the singular neuter, which is a perfect fit for a solitary and asexual spirit like Satan. It was also written in the nominative, as was "mysterion – mysterious religious doctrine." This tells us that "one who is genderless" is not only being religious, but also that religion comes from "o – the one" currently "energeo – effecting" the negation of the Torah.

That is especially troubling considering Yahowah’s and Yahowsha’s testimony, because God tells us that the Torahless One is Satan. Also telling, "energeo – functioning and producing" was presented in the third person singular, or "it" in English, not "he" because it isn’t masculine. Further, by conveying energeo in the present indicative, Paul is revealing that "the one" currently allied with him to effect the negation of the Torah is actually accomplishing that mission. This, thereby, forms an affinity between Sha’uwl and Satan.

Following this confession, we confront the asexual Torahless one’s foe. And this time the article, "o – the One," was scribed in the singular masculine, as was the verb "katecho – trying to prevent this." Therefore, unlike the fallen spirit known as Satan who is one of many, God who is the One and only was designated as "monon – the only such entity in His class." Also revealing, rather than deploying the decisive indicative form which conveys actual results, in reference to the Restrainer, God is merely presented in the active participle form, and thus is being characterized by His energetic effort. Worse, when speaking of His return, this verb was written in the aorist subjunctive, and thus as a mere possibility in some point in time unrelated to any process or plan.

Bringing these insights together, if your mind is open and if you are in tune with the things of God and the character of Sha’uwl and his associate, what you will see is Satan using Paulos to negate the Torah, replacing it with religion, while Yahowah, alone, is attempting to thwart them. So while the axiom suggests that confession is good for the soul, I suspect that depends upon what an individual is admitting.

From a translation perspective, it should now be obvious that since katecho was not written in second person, there is no justification for adding the pronoun "he" that we find in many English translations. Further, as a result of its gender, the "restrainer" cannot be convoluted into a metaphor for the Set-Apart Spirit, as most English translations want us to believe.

So upon close examination, this is a treasure trove of evidence. Not since Galatians 2:4 have we confronted so much secrecy surrounding Sha’uwl. Paul was, of course, resolutely anti-Torah. He was also a huge proponent of religion. He even personally admitted to being restrained by Satan in 2 Corinthians 12, collectively providing the perspective required to interpret these bizarre statements.

And speaking of strange, Christian eschatologists are wont to make anomos "the man of Lawlessness," or "the Lawless one," and thus serve as the name or title of the "Antichrist," but there is no reference to "man" or "one" in that portion of the text, and anomos is an adjective, not a noun. Further, while a serves as a negation in Greek, nomos, as we have learned, is "an allotment which facilitates an inheritance," not "law."

However, by advancing this train of thought, Christians must promote a statement written in the present tense as being prophetic, trying to make it appear as if Paul was addressing the Tribulation. But not only were the initial verbs scribed to depict current actions, both were reinforced by "ede – already" and "arti – right now." It follows then, if Paul was actually addressing the actions of the "Man of Lawlessness" or the "Torahless One, that individual could be none other than Sha’uwl, himself, as he alone was presently doing what he was ascribing to this individual. Therefore, in these words, Paul is admitting that he is not only the founder of the Christian religion, the individual most responsible for its scheme to replace the Torah with religious myths, but also indistinguishable from the "Antichrist."

And let’s not dismiss the potential for prophetic error. If Paul was attempting to predict what would occur during the last days, as his next statement seems to indicate, then his timing was off by a scant nineteen and a half centuries. It is then a second false prophecy, the other being predicting that the "rapture" would occur during his lifetime. And one misfire earns this designation.

In this light, and from this perspective, please once again consider: "For (gar) the one (o) ofmystery who is the essence of religious myths (mysterion) is already (ede) currently and actuallyfunctioning, effecting (energeo) Torahlessness by negating the Towrah (tes anomias). Only the One alone (monon o) currently restrains this, holding fast, actively trying to prevent this (katecho) now (arti) until (hoes) the One might appear, existing (ginomai) from out of (ek) the midst (mesos)." (2T2:7) And to further reinforce this malfeasance, especially regarding the tenses and timing, please consider the scholarly Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear’s rendition: "The for mystery already operates of the lawlessness, alone the one holding down now until from middle he might become."

But that’s hardly the end of the bad news for Christians. In 1st Corinthians 9:21, Paul will brag: "To those (tois) without an inheritance from the Towrah (anomos – the Towrah-less, to those lacking the nourishment which is bestowed to be possessed and used to become heirs, to those without the precepts which were apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and approved, to those devoid of the prescriptions required to become an heir and grow; based upon a negation of nemo – that which is not provided, assigned, or distributed precluding inheritance and nourishment), I was like (os) the Towrahless (anomos – those without an allotment, an inheritance, or the Towrah)." It is yet another chilling confession – one which should never be disassociated from his statement here in 2nd Thessalonians 2:7.

Anomos, as a negation of everything Yahowah’s Towrah represents, was deployed next in Sha’uwl’s distressing letter to Thessalonica to further beguile them. And in so doing, Paul spoke of the ongoing future consequence of his current mission, all while demonstrating that he was oblivious to Yahowah’s timing, having no concept of how His seven-step plan of reconciliation would play out over seven-thousand years of human history.

Lastly, remember that Yahowsha’ has said that He will expressly deny entry into heaven to anyone and everyone who refers to Him as "the Lord." Such individuals, He says, have no association with Him, because He does not nor will ever know them. And that’s hard to square with Pauline professions like this one.

"And then (kai tote – so thereupon) the negation of theTorah (o anomos – that which becomes Torahlessness, the lack of nourishment which was bestowed to become an heir, being without the precepts which were apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and approved, being devoid of the prescriptions required to be given an inheritance and grow) will be revealed and disclosed (apokalypto – it will be uncovered, made known, and unveiled) whom (on – pronoun relative accusative singular masculine) the Lord (okurios – the owner, master, one who controls and possesses, ruling over slaves) ‘Iesous (‘Iesous – [since the oldest witness of this passage is three centuries removed from its author, and is highly inaccurate, it would be inappropriate to presume that Sha’uwl correctly stated Yahowsha’s name or title]) will embrace or kill (anaireo – he will put to death and do away with, he will murder and destroy, he will take away and abolish, or he will choose for himself, lifting up and adopting; from ana – up into the midst and haireomai – to choose to take for oneself) withthe (to) spirit (pneumatic – non material being (dative singular neuter)) of the (tou) mouth (stoma – often used as a metaphor for speech) of him (autou), and (kai) will put an end to (katargeomai – will invalidate and unemploy, will bring to an end and render idle, will put a stop to and abolish, will inactivate and cause to be inoperative) inthe (te) illustriousappearance and conspicuous manifestation (epiphaneia – form or expression; from epiphanies, to be conspicuous and illustrious) of the (tes) personalpresence (parousia – coming arrival or advent in person) of him (autou)(2T2:8) whose (ou) is (eimi – exists as) the presence (e parousia – the coming advent in person, the arrival) according to (kata – down from, against, and with regard to) the functional power (energeia – working energy, activity, and supernatural influence) of the Adversary (tou Satana – the Satan, the name and title of the Devil; from the Hebrew Satan – Adversary) in (en) all (pas – every and the totality of) miracles (dynamis – supernatural power and ability, mighty deeds and influential activities, resources and wonders) and (kai) signs (semeion – miraculous signals and distinguishing characteristics), and (kai) deception (pseudo – fraud, a lie, and falsehood, deceit and error (dative, thereby relating pseudo with teras)) which is wondrous and marvelous (teras – given portent, which arouses, garnering attention (genitive, thereby associating teras with pseudo))." (2 Thessalonians 2:8-9)

Since there are more questions than answers here, let’s review this same text as it is rendered in the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear: "And then will be uncovered the lawless whom the Master Jesus will kill in the spirit of the mouth of him and will abolish in the appearance of the presence of him whose is the presence by operation of the adversary in all power and signs and marvels of lie."

To begin, when we connect the present activity currently underway in the last statement with this one, it becomes obvious that Paul incorrectly presumed that he was living in the last days just prior to Yahowsha’s return.

Second, the Torah will never be annulled. So while individuals like Paul can advocate its abrogation, such pontifications are invalid and ineffectual.

Third, by deliberately referring to Yahowsha’ as "o Kurios – the Lord" in a document originally written in Greek, Paulos has disassociated himself from Yahowsha’ while excluding himself from heaven. This then contradicts his claim to being His apostle.

Fourth, Yahowsha’ is not going to "anaireo – embrace or kill" Satan. No matter how we render anaireo, Paul’s statement is wrong. Spirits like Satan cannot be killed, even by Yahowah. They are eternal, which is why She’owl exists to eternally separate and imprison them. Likewise, Satan’s spirit cannot "anaireo – be abolished or destroyed." And we know from Mattanyah’s testimony that Yahowsha’ expressly rejected Satan, which means that He will not "anaireo – choose, embrace, lift up, or adopt" the Adversary. Yahowah is going to incarcerate Satan in She’owl temporarily and then one thousand years later, forever.

Anaireo, translated "will do away with or accept," is a compound of ana, meaning "into the midst," and haireomai, "to take for oneself, to choose and to prefer." Therefore it would be presumptuous to translate it "kill" without also considering the other equally valid alternatives.

Fifth, while Yahowsha’ can breathe out the Spirit unto a receptive audience, Satan isn’t receptive and the Word of God is what usually comes out of Yahowsha’s mouth. He is going to excommunicate Satan by citing the Towrah.

Sixth, Yahowsha’ isn’t going to "katargeomai – put an end to" Satan. He isn’t going to "unemploy" the Adversary, render the Devil "idle," nor "inactivate or abolish" him, much less make Satan "inoperative," upon His return. He is simply going to banish him to She’owl for one thousand years, whereupon he will be released, both employed and operational – at least for a while.

Seventh, epiphaneia, which speaks of an illustrious expression and conspicuous manifestation, is invalid. As Sha’uwl knew from his personal experience with him, Satan’s form is illustrious, but the Adversary is seldom if ever conspicuous. Also, during the Tribulation, Satan will be concealing his presence, possessing and manipulating the False Prophet and Towrahless One (a.k.a. the "Antichrist"), as they attempt to fool the gullible. Instead of revealing himself for who he actually is, Satan, as he has always done, will conceal his true identity to fool people into worshipping him as God.

But that’s not the end of the duplicity. Epiphaneia, which could be translated "glorious appearance," was used by Greeks of Paul’s day to describe the "brilliant and illustrious divine manifestations of their pagan gods." It is from epiphanies, "to be conspicuous and illustrious." Epiphanies in turn is from epiphaino, meaning "an appearance which brings light and thereby enlightens." It is a compound of epi, meaning "by way of," and phaino, "bringing light." As such, it serves as the basis for the Latin name "Lucifer." Along these lines, phaino means "to shed light, to shine brightly, and to have a brilliant appearance." Phaino is based upon phos, the Greek word for "light."

So Sha’uwl is telling us that his Lord, the one controlling him, who is Satan in the guise of Iesou, the manufactured god who has become known as the Christian "Jesus," is going to destroy the concept of the Adversary, invalidating it, rendering it inoperative. In this way, and therefore after shedding the Adversary moniker, Satan will present himself as God. So speaking of his rendezvous with destiny, the arrogant and yet brilliant, the hideous and yet beautiful, the dark and yet radiant spirit known to the world as "Satan – the Adversary," will stop functioning as God’s opponent long enough rise above the Most High – at least in the hearts and souls of the faithful. And true to his character, he will show off right to the bitter end, performing all manner of miracles, signs and wonders, every one of which will be crafted to deceive.

That is why in these words we find that Satan especially keen to have his favorite witness proclaim that the clandestine fraud he will be perpetrating on the unsuspecting will appear wondrous and marvelous – especially to the Towrahless. Thereby, the Adversary is once again displaying a condescending attitude toward humankind, in essence saying that we are so stupid we won’t recognize him even when he tells us the truth.

Sure, Satan knows that his days are numbered, but that doesn’t seem to diminish his self image or desire to go out in a blaze of glory, extinguishing countless souls in the process. Therefore, rather than serve as a victorious declaration, this passage is a duplicitous lament. It’s reminiscent of the Wicked Witch’s sorrowful mourning as she melts away at the end of the Wizard of Oz, only to find that the wizard was a fraud.

Also troubling, the very signs and wonders Paul has claimed served as proof that he was an Apostle have now been attributed to Satan. So this is rotten, no matter where we look.

And besides associating "signs and wonders" with Satan while praising him, the "glorious and radiant manifestation of power and light" of the beguiling messenger, known to many as Lucifer, will perpetrate the most marvelous deceptions the world has ever seen. It will all occur to negate the concept of the "Adversary" for reasons that become clear once you come to understand the Deceiver’s ultimate strategy and motivation – one manifest in the title he craves: the Lord.

Since it unlocks a treasure trove of understanding, it bears repeating, Satan doesn’t want to be known as "the Adversary." The Devil wants humankind to confuse his "gloriously brilliant appearance" with God. His goal is to have his "marvelous deceptions" become religious doctrine. Lucifer (from Latin meaning Light Bearer) or Halal ben Shachar (from Hebrew meaning Arrogant and Radiant Son of the Rising Sun) inspires his messengers to promote him as God. And this is why Paul and Muhammad alike demean Satan. This adversarial title stands in the way of the duplicitous one becoming the Lord of religion. So by condemning the idea of being God’s foe, Satan is delivered from this antagonist epithet.

"And in (kai en) every (pas) seductive, beguiling, and deceitful delusion (apate – deception, temptation, or trickery) associated with an injustice (adikia – of unrighteousness, evil, wrongdoing, and wickedness),to the ones being destroyed (tois apollymai – those who are unaware and thus lost, those ruined and destroyed, deprived of life) instead of (anti – in place of) this (on), the love (ten agapen – the devotion and brotherly love) of the (tes) truth (aletheia) they have not welcomed or received (ouk dechomai – they have not accepted or believed) for (eis) them (autous) to besaved (sozo – to be rescued). (2T2:10)

And (kai) through (dia) this (touto), the (o) god (theos) sends to (pempo) them (autois) a powerful and effective (energeia – a working, functioning, and operational) misleading deception (plane – delusion, corruption, and perversion which leads astray) for (eis – to) them (autous) to believe (pisteuo – to put their faith in) the lie (to pseudo – the deception or falsehood, the erroneous claim)." (2 Thessalonians 2:10-11)

The writing quality is so poor, even intentionally duplicitous, we are all too often forced to interpret the ravings of an insane mind. So while I’m not sure what this means, it isn’t good. Not only has Paul been the world’s most prolific distributor of seductive and beguiling delusions, no one has ever been more hostile to the truth. But this inverted presentation of reality is child’s play compared to the hypocrisy of the man who perpetrated the most beguiling deception ever foisted on humankind claiming that it is God who will mislead believers.

And yet, that is the nature of Sha’uwl’s Lord. He is "apate – seductive, beguiling, deceitful, and delusional," using "trickery and deception to tempt" unsuspecting souls. Satan is also the Lord of "akikia – injustice, unrighteousness, wrongdoing, and evil." Those he and his apostle fool "apollymai – are unaware and lost, and thus destroyed and ruined, ultimately deprived of life." Having been seduced by Paul to reject Yahowah’s Towrah, they "ouk dechomai – are adverse to, neither welcoming nor receiving" the "aletheia – truth." As a result, no Pauline Christian has ever been "sozo – saved." Having preferred the "plane – misleading corruption and deceptive delusion of the way," they have been "led astray." Their "theos – god," one conceived by man, has "energeia – perpetrated and powerful and effective" religion, the faith born out of Paul’s epistles.

So when Sha’uwl finally tells the truth, it turns out to be even more hideous than his lies. And that reminds me of one of Yahowsha’s most foreboding and sorrowful statements: "I (ego),Myself,have come (erchomai – I have shown Myself, appearing and becoming manifest) in the name (en to onoma – with the one and only name belonging to the person and reputation (dative singular)) ofthe Father (tou pater – the masculine archetype parent of the family) of Mine (mou), and yet (kai) you do not receive Me (ou lambano me – you do not actually accept Me nor grasp hold of Me, you do not choose or prefer Me, and thus you do not take hold of My hand nor take advantage of and experience Me). But when (ean – on the condition whenever) another (allos – completely different individual and entity) comes (erchomai – might appear, showing himself, and coming forth, presenting himself) in his own name (en to onoma to idio – with his own individual, unique, and distinctive, private, and personal name), that individual (ekeinos – that lone and specific man, him, then and there (the demonstrative singles out the individual, the accusative associates this man and name, while the singular masculine limits this to a single male individual)) you all will actually receive (lambano – you will all accept, choose, and prefer)." (Yahowchanan / Yah is Merciful / John 5:43)

Yahowsha’ came in His Father’s name. He was the corporeal manifestation of everything Yahowah had said, done, promised, and predicted. His message and mission, His character and purpose, were identical to God’s. It is as if He walked out of the pages of the Towrah. And yet, even with all the credibility of being the very Creator of the universe, as few as one in a million souls have chosen to accept Him for who He is, for what He said, for what He did, and for whom He was named.

Christians changed His name, replaced His title, misrepresented His sacrifice, and drove a wedge between Him and His Father, foolishly discarding the unity of their message by calling one old and the other new. They even claimed that Rome was able to kill their god. But to reject Yahowsha’ in this way, Christians have to disregard most everything He said and did, which means that their faith is utterly worthless. And that is why His quote is so painful to read.

Paulos came in a name wholly unrelated to Yahowah and His Towrah testimony. Given the name "Sha’uwl – Question Him" at birth, the world’s most infamous charlatan deliberately changed his name to embrace the culture of Rome – the pagan empire responsible for the destruction of Yahowah’s Temple’s and land, Yisra’el.

And as estranged as this lone individual’s preferred moniker was from all things Yahowah, his message was even more divergent. Paulos, Latin for "Lowly and Little," denied and demeaned the Towrah, preaching his own mantra in complete opposition to God. He acknowledged being demon-possessed and insane, being perverted and murderous. He attacked Yahowsha’s Disciples, demeaning them. He equated the Lord with God. And yet billions of souls have chosen to believe him, accepting his poorly crafted message while discarding the most brilliant words ever written.

When it comes to Yahowsha’ and Sha’uwl, to choose one is to deny the other. You can embrace the merciful Hand of God or the rotten hand of man. It does not seem like a difficult choice. So why have a million men and women chosen Paul for every one who has accepted Yahowah’s hand?

The moment Sha’uwl finished incriminating himself at the Yaruwshalaym Summit with his testimony about the "signs and wonders he had performed," Yahowsha’s brother stood up. Ya’aqob had heard more than enough. His brother, who just happened to be the corporeal manifestation of God, had made it abundantly clear that the Disciples were all called to share His healing and beneficial message with the entire world. Gentiles were not Sha’uwl’s private domain. This reality had then been further underscored when on the Invitation to be Called Out and Meet with God of Seven Sabbaths, the Set-Apart Spirit had equipped each of them with the ability to speak the languages of the Gentiles.

"But after (de meta) their silence (to autous sigao), Ya’aqob (Iakobos – a transliteration of the Hebrew Ya’aqob, describing one whose walk is steadfast as a result of digging in his heels; changed by Christians to "James" to honor the English king) responded, saying (apokrinomai lego – answered the question by saying),‘Men, brothers (andres adelphos), listen to me (akouo mou). (15.13)

Shim’own (Symeon – a transliteration of Shim’own, from shama’, meaning He Listens) made fully known to us (exegeomai – told the whole truth, providing detailed information, carefully describing, explaining, and teaching),in the same way as (kathos) previously (proton – earlier and formerly) God (theos) carefully chose to care, doing what was required (episkeptomai – He sought to visit, to look after, to help, and) to receive (lambano – to acquire and grasp hold of) from (ek – out of) the races and nations (ethnon – different ethnicities) people (laos – ordinary individuals) in His name (to onomatiautou)." (Acts 15:13-14)

According to Yahowsha’s brother, Ya’aqob, the Disciple Shim’own, and God, Himself, witnessing to the Gentiles wasn’t a new marketing ploy under the new management of Sha’uwl, but instead was something Yahowah had promised by way of His prophets including Shim’own. This is why Yahowah’s children, whether they be naturally born or adopted, are called "Yahuwdym"—Related to Yah. We are called to Yahowah’s name, not Paul’s.

And you’ll notice, rather than telling us to "believe" him, Ya’aqob said that Shim’own, just like God, Himself, "exegeomai – told the whole truth, providing detailed information, carefully describing, explaining, and teaching to make everything fully known to us." It is in this way that we demonstrate our compassion and concern for people the world over. Making known by teaching is what is required for men and women to be received by God.

To prove his point, Ya’aqob quoted Scripture. So, let’s take this opportunity to compare the Greek translation to the Hebrew original.

"And regarding this (kai touto), the words (oi legos) of the prophets (ton prophetes) agree, (symphoneo – are consistent, a perfect match), inasmuchas (kathos) it has been written (grapho): (15:15)

‘With (meta – beyond) this (houtos) Iwill return (anastrephomai – I will come back) and (kai) Iwillrepair andrebuild (anoikodomeo – I will reestablish) the sheltered dwelling place (ten skene – tent and tabernacle) of Dowd (Dauid – transliteration of Dowd, meaning love in Hebrew) that has fallen (ten pipto – that has prostrated itself and has been destroyed), and (kai) that which has been torn down (ta kataskapto autes – the things which have been razed and demolished, being dug asunder). I will reestablish (anoikodomeo – I will repair and renew) and (kai) I willrestore them, making them upright again (anorthoo auten – I will straighten them up from a position which is bent over).’" (Acts 15:15-16)

Skene, translated "sheltered dwelling place," is synonymous with Sukah, which is most accurately translated "Shelters." It serves as the name of Yahowah’s seventh Called-Out Assembly, where we are invited to campout with our Heavenly Father. As a "protective covering," skene speaks of the role our Spiritual Mother plays in our salvation. By way of Her Garment of Light, we become Yahowah’s "tabernacles" on earth.

The lexicons tell us that skene is related to skeuos, which is "a vessel," "an implement," and a "protective covering" – all of which are descriptive of the Spirit’s purpose. Along these lines, skene is also associated with skia, which is "a lesser dimensional representation and representative of something which serves as a foreshadowing of something bigger and better." When we are born anew from above by way of our Spiritual Mother, we become more like God, holding onto the promise that we will continue to grow as His adopted children. So, by using skene in this translation of Yahowah testimony, we find acknowledgements of His Spirit and affirmations of His love, all in concert with Shelters, His final Feast.

Ya’aqob elected to quote the prophet, Amos, who spoke of the destruction of the nation of Yisra’el. Fleshing out the context of this citation, we discover that as a result of Yisra’el’s forming a covenant with the Lord ("ha Ba’al" in Hebrew, and thus Satan), Yahowah’s judgment had become inevitable. The Yisra’elites had separated themselves from God, so He told them that the house of Ya’aqob would be shaken. He said that those among His people who erred, and thus missed the way, would die, and that those who remained would encounter an evil calamity which would cause great suffering. He was speaking of the Roman invasion which resulted from Rabbi Akiba’s insistence upon a false-Mashiach. It led to the Diaspora and eventually to the Holocaust.

But Yahuwdym would be restored in Yisra’el, according to the words Yahowah revealed to the prophet, Amos. This then is the very Word of God, the testimony which Ya’aqob quoted at the Yaruwshalaym Summit:

I will repair and restore (gadar – rebuild) its (henah) cracks andbreeches (peres – that which is exposed, broken, or torn, that which is foolhardy and dissipates) and that which is in a state of disrepair (harycah – is lying in ruins).I will raise it up (quwm huw’ – cause him to stand) and (wa) rebuild, restoring (banah – renew and reestablish) Her (hy’) like (ka) days (yowm) everlasting (‘olam – of antiquity and forever into the future)." (Amos 9:11)

This is Yahowah’s promise to restore Yisra’el and to establish the Millennial Sabbath in harmony with the prophetic symbolism of the Miqra’ of Sukah. The timing of this anticipated reconciliation coincides with His return on YowmKippurym in Year 6,000 Yah (sunset in Yaruwshalaim on October 2nd, 2033).

Worth noting is the fact that "Sukah – Shelters" is a feminine noun, identifying God’s protected enclosure with our Spiritual Mother who "shelters and protects us." So by using "hy’ – Her" in reference to "rebuilding, restoring, renewing, and reestablishing," we discover that Yahowah intends to renew the "Sukah – protective enclosure," "restoring this home to days everlasting." This is particularly significant because Sukah is synonymous with the Gan ‘Eden, where gan also describes a "protected garden enclosure" and ‘eden speaks of "great joy."

This also suggests that during the Miqra’ of Sukah, the whole Earth will resemble the Garden of Eden, making the time when we are invited to campout with God especially enjoyable. And since the Millennial Sabbath commences on the Called-Out Assembly of Shelters, we know that God’s plan is to restore and renew, to repair and rebuild our world during this time, taking us back to the perfect realm and relationship we once enjoyed. And that means that there is no "New Testament," but instead the renewal of the existing Familial Covenant Relationship. This is something Yahowah affirms in no uncertain terms in Yirmayah / Jeremiah 31, when He speaks of the still future renewal of His Covenant.

Recognizing that the translation of this passage had to pass through three languages, Hebrew to Aramaic, Aramaic to Greek, and then Greek to English, and through the hands of countless scribes, Ya’aqob’s quotation was reasonably accurate. And in some ways, it was akin to what is found in the Septuagint, although not entirely. For example, Luke’s interpretation of Ya’aqob’s quotation begins "With this (μετα ταυτα)," while the Septuagint reads "In that day (εν τη ημερα εκεινη)," putting the Septuagint in accord with Yahowah’s citation, but Acts in discord.

From this point, the Codex Sinaiticus (our oldest witness to Acts 15:15) jumbles the Septuagint’s word order. Agreeing with the Hebrew text, the Septuagint reads: "the Sukah of Dowd which has fallen, and I will rebuild her things that are broken, as well as her things that are in a state of disrepair, (from:την σκηνην Δαυιδ την πεπτωκυιαν καὶ ανοικοδομησω τα πεπτωκοτα αυτης και τα κατεσκαμμενα αυτης)."But, the Codex Sinaiticus, while conveying a similar message, is again imprecise: "And I shall rebuild the Sukah of Dowd / David which has fallen, and her things that have fallen into a state of disrepair I shall rebuild, (from: καὶ ανοικοδομησω την σκηνην Δαυιδ την πεπτωκυιαν και τα κατεσκαμμενα αυτης ανοικοδομησω)." Recognizing how easy it would have been for Luke, and the scribes responsible for the Codex Sinaiticus, to get this right (recognizing that the Septuagint is correct), we have to ask ourselves: who was responsible for these mistakes? And acknowledging that these errors exist, we must deal with the fact that passages which are not found in extant first-, second-, or third-century manuscripts are especially suspect, and thus unreliable.

But that’s not the end of the disparities. The Septuagint continues with: "I shall stand up and repair her just as the days that are everlasting (from: αναστησω και ανοικοδομησω αυτην καθως αι ημεραι του αιωνος)," which is as close to the Hebrew text as different languages allow. But in the Codex Sinaiticus, we find Luke’s hearsay transcription of Ya’aqob’s quotation changed to: "And I shall straighten her (και ανορθωσω αυτην)," which is inconsistent with the Hebrew reads. Therefore, either Ya’aqob speaking Hebrew misquoted the Hebrew verse, Luke’s source misquoted Ya’aqob, Luke mistranslated his source, or subsequent scribes were either careless or trifling.

This exercise serves to affirm that one of the most revered of all codices, Sinaiticus, isn’t reliable. One might even argue that this manuscript was written in Rome on the order of Emperor Constantine and then sent to Egypt where it remained in the Roman Catholic monastery named in honor of Constantine’s mother, "Saint Catherine," on the mythical Mount Sinai (replete with the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, and Sirach) until the goatskin hides were plucked from the trash by Leipzig archaeologist, Constantin von Tischendorf, moments before they were burned in the ovens. Giving further weight to its Roman origins, the chapter divisions in the Codex Sinaiticus’ rendition of the book of Acts coincide only with the Codex Vaticanus and early copies of Jerome’s Vulgate, adding considerable weight to the conclusion that the Codex Sinaiticus was politically and religiously inspired.

More recent history aside, Luke’s hearsay presentation of Ya’aqob’s citation of Yahowah’s next revelation through the Prophet Amos, reads: "So that (hopos) then (an – conveying a possibility in an uncertain time of an if-then proposition) willdiligently scrutinize and seek out (ekzeteo – will search out, investigate, pursue, and / or bring charges against) this remnant (oi kataloipos – those who remain) of mankind (ton anthropos) of the (ton) Upright Pillar of the Tabernacle (KN – a placeholder used in the Septuagint for either ‘edon, the Upright One or for Yahowah’s name), and (kai) all (pas) ofthe races and nations (ta ethnos – of the ethnicities) upon (epi) whom (ous) has been called and surnamed (epikaleomai – has asked for help, appealing to a higher judge and as a result had the name put upon them, permitting oneself to be surnamed after someone, and to be called and summoned as a witness (in the perfect tense this describes a completed action in the past which has current ramifications, in the passive voice, the individual is being acted upon, and in the indicative mood, this describes an actual occurrence)) in association with (to) My (mou) name (onoma) upon (epi) them (autous) says (lego) Yahowah (ΚΣ– placeholder used by Yahowsha’s Disciples and throughout the Septuagint for Yahowah’s name using the Greek kurios),doing (poieomai – performing) this (tauta)(15:17) which was known (gnostos – is that which could be known) from (apo) world and universal history (aionos – from long ago and at all times since)." (Acts 15:17-18)

Unfortunately, this wasn’t an accurate citation of Amos 9:12, a fact which we will consider in a moment. But since it is so remarkably different than what the Hebrew prophet quoted Yahowah saying, let’s verify the Greek text by way of the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear: "So that [not applicable] will seek out the rest behind of the men the Master and all the nations on whom has been called on the name of me on them says Master doing these known from age." The New America Standard Bible, which erroneously claims to be a literal translation of the oldest manuscripts, suggests:"In order that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old."